Template talk:Pacific areas affected (Top)

statistics header
I am not sure we need the  statistics header that produces 2017 Pacific tropical cyclone statistics, as it is just unnecessary fluff imo. This is especially true when we consider that the SE Charts are located within their own section and have an introductory section to them.Jason Rees (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It could be useful; however, this would require modifying the pages of every single article that uses this template, in order to avoid the appearance of the ugly   text above each of their "Seasonal Effects" infobox. I already tried integrating the new data 2 or 3 times in the 2017 Pacific typhoon season article, only to fail miserably (the end result always messed up the infobox). It just might be more convenient to remove this parameter altogether. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Jason Rees, that parameter was such a beast. However, if we decide to keep this change, we have to apply this addition to every single article that uses this template as well. So are we going to keep it or not? LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is only a beast since you were trying to deploy the parameters in TC stats table start3 rather than the Pacific areas affected template. Anyway I would rather not keep it for the reasons outlined above but if it is too stay then all 158 transclusions of this chart will need to be edited.Jason Rees (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Should have realize my mistake earlier on... This is what I get for attempting to copy from the TC stats table end3 Template formatting. I would rather not have to alter all 158 articles (I think that I've updated about 3 of them), but the information could potentially prove to be useful. If we choose not to keep the new parameters, we might have to self-revert on all the articles where it has been done, assuming that deleting these parameters will result in the infoboxes looking messed up (with the added information). Now, I've already made the changes to all of the 2017 season articles with the template (minus the Australian region article, which uses a different template). LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am considering switching the Atlantic to the new template for the years dating back to at least 1990, but not all at once (e.g I may do the 2015, 2016 and 2017 seasons today. Same goes for the EPac. And as far as I know the header didn't mess things up at all on the 2003 page so I think it can still stay. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 11:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Its fine to gradually change the tables over to the new style - its what ive been doing for a while now and you will find ways to cheat all around the place. However, you did not explain me or why the header is still needed when its redudant for reasons i explained above? Jason Rees (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I think that the TC stats 3 template currently in use for the Atlantic and Pacific hurricane season should not be changed for those basins, they are already fine just the way they are (not to mention that they already have the parameters you added to this template). It would only cause more modification headaches. Changing template for all seasonal articles would make 1 or 2 other templates in use obsolete, and I think that we need a much bigger discussion, involving an agreed template merge, before any of us attempts something like that. For now, the changes should only be limited to articles using this template. BTW, if a template merger is agreed to and implemented, ALL of the articles must be changed, not just those dating back to 1990 (which is another reason why I am opposed to the potential larger-scale change). LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The table is not fine for various reasons, including the fact that it doesn't include referencing the data like deaths and damages. It is also more compliant with the Manual of Style and has been gradually implemented over the last few years in all basins. I am also removing the header since it isnt needed.Jason Rees (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I could just add a ref column to the old template. Also I oppose removing the header, because it gives an idea of what the table is for. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are other reasons for the new table, like compliance with the manual of style and allowing for stuff like sorting. It also makes us consistent with other tables like the ones used in off-season hurricanes and retired names. Also if your only reason for keeping the header is it gives an idea of what the table is about then im removing it as the blurb introducing the table does that.Jason Rees (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)